Judgment : K. Kalyanasundaram, J.- 1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 1.10.2013, passed by the Chairperson, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in AIR (SA) No.542 of 2013 in S.A.No.73 of 2011. 2. The petitioner had availed loan from the first respondent bank and subsequently, the petitioner along with three others, filed S.A.No.73 of 2011, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai, challenging the notice, dated 18.2.2011, issued by the first respondent bank, under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act' in short), for sale of the secured asset. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai, by order dated 21.6.2013, allowed the said SA, holding that the first respondent bank/creditor had not produced any material to prove that 30 days notice was given to the borrower, as provided under Sub Rule (6) of Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, before bringing the property for sale. 3. Admittedly, the first respondent bank did not file any appeal against the said order. On the other hand, the petitioner/borrower, who succeeded before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai, had filed an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, contending that while allowing the SA, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, ought to have passed orders for handing over possession of the scheduled property to them and return of Rs.15 lakhs, deposited by them, as per the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai, dated 23.2.2011, granting stay of the sale and also the cost of the appeal proceedings and counsel's fee. 4. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, had passed the impugned order, dated 1.10.2013, directing the petitioner to pay the deficit Court fee of Rs.75,300/- and also file an application for waiver of the pre-deposit, under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. Challenging the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed. 5. Heard Mr.T.Ashok Surana, party in person, and Mr.M.Balachandar, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the first respondent bank. 6. Challenging the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed. 5. Heard Mr.T.Ashok Surana, party in person, and Mr.M.Balachandar, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the first respondent bank. 6. The party in person has filed the written argument, relying upon the judgments reported in (i) 2013(10) Scale 391 – Basawaraj and Others vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer; (ii) AIR 2010 SC 3745 -Kalabharati Advertising vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and Others; (iii) AIR 2009 SC 1027 – Wada Arun Asbestos (P) Ltd. vs. Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board; (iv) AIR 2008 SC 48 – Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd., vs. State of U.P.and Others; (v) AIR 2003 SC 4482 – South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., vs. State of M.P.and others and (vi) AIR 1979 SC 404 – Mohammed Hasnuddin vs. State of Maharashtra. 7. The only issue that arises for consideration in this civil revision petition is as to whether the petitioner is liable to pay the Court fee, under Rule 13(2)(b) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, as directed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. 8. Though the petitioner had made elaborate arguments with regard to the measures taken by the first respondent bank, invoking the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, to bring the petitioner's secured asset for sale and also describing the action of the first respondent as fraud, we are of the view that those contentions are alien and they need not be considered in this revision petition, as the issue involved is in narrow compass. The judgments cited by the petitioner are not relevant for the issue involved in this revision petition and therefore, we are not inclined to delve deep into those judgments. 9. Rule 13 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, reads as follows: "Fee for applications and appeals under Sections 17 and 18 of the Act – (1) Every application under sub-section (1) of Section 17 or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (1) of Section 18 shall be accompanied by a fee provided in the sub-rule (2) and such fee may be remitted through a crossed demand draft drawn on a bank or Indian Postal Order in favour of the Registrar of the Tribunal or the Court as the case may be, payable at the place where the Tribunal or the Court is situated. . . . . . " 10. . . . . . " 10. The above provision, which deals with the payment of Court fee, does not give exemption from paying Court fee, to any person, nor the petitioner has shown any ground for waiver of the Court fee required to be paid, under the law. 11. It is also noted that the petitioner is further directed, by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, to file an application for waiver, under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act and as per the said direction, it is open to the petitioner to file waiver application and in such an event, if any order is passed against the petitioner, it can very well challenge the said order, separately. 12. In the light of our above findings, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.